Raro v. Employees' Compensation Commission
ABANDONMENTFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Zaida G. Raro was employed as a clerk by the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences. Approximately four years into her employment, she began experiencing severe headaches and blurring of vision. She was diagnosed with a brain tumor, which led to the loss of her memory, sense of time, vision, and reasoning power. Procedural History: A claim for disability benefits filed by Raro's husband with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) was denied. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed the GSIS decision. The Petition: Raro filed a petition raising two issues: (1) whether a brain tumor of unknown causes contracted during employment is compensable under the present compensation laws, and (2) whether the presumption of compensability is absolutely inapplicable under the present compensation laws when a disease is not listed as an occupational disease.
Issue(s)
Whether a brain tumor, whose causes are unknown but contracted during employment, is compensable under the present compensation laws. Whether the presumption of compensability is absolutely inapplicable under the present compensation laws when a disease is not listed as an occupational disease.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the questioned decision of the public respondents is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the compensability of brain tumor of unknown causes: The Court held that under Presidential Decree No. 422, as amended (the Labor Code), for a sickness not listed as an occupational disease to be compensable, the employee must prove that the risk of contracting the same was increased by the working conditions. The law requires the claimant to prove a positive thing – that the illness was caused by employment and the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. The Court reiterated that in Navalta v. Government Service Insurance System, it recognized that cancer is a disease of still unknown origin which strikes people in all walks of life, and unless it is shown that a particular form of cancer is caused by specific working conditions, it cannot be concluded that employment increased the risk of contracting the disease. On the applicability of the presumption of compensability: The Court clarified that the presumption of compensability and the principle of aggravation, which were features of the defunct Workmen's Compensation Act, have been expressly discarded under the present compensation scheme established by the Labor Code. The new law, which is based on social security principles, requires the claimant to prove a positive proposition – that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by working conditions. The Court explained that the adversarial nature of the old law, where the worker was pitted against the employer, has been replaced by a social insurance scheme where claims are paid from a trust fund. In this new system, the employer's duty is to pay premiums, and the employee must prove entitlement, as the trust fund, not the employer, bears the cost of non-compensable claims. The Court emphasized that the wisdom of the present scheme is a matter for the President and Congress, and its duty is to apply the law as it stands.
Main Doctrine
Under the present compensation scheme, for a sickness not listed as an occupational disease to be compensable, the claimant must prove that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the working conditions. The presumption of compensability and the principle of aggravation found in the defunct Workmen's Compensation Act are expressly discarded.